Intel Core i5-14600K in tests against 30 processors

Extra tests, Processors | | Ľubomír Samák

Intel Core i5-14600K in detail

In the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, Intel has gone a bit harder and increased the clock speeds in the Core i5 class. This has led to higher application and gaming performance, but by pushing the manufacturing process to its limits, power draw has naturally increased, and with it comes poorer efficiency. The latter may not be that important for someone and the main thing is that the processor can be comfortably operated even with a “normal” cooler.

Intel Core i5-14600K in detail

After a year since the release of Intel Raptor Lake processors, here comes their “refresh”, which is mainly marked by higher clock speeds that can be achieved with these processors. Starting with the Core i5-14600K, its increase in speed is 200 MHz on the P cores for both multi-core and single-threaded boost. Instead of 5100 MHz (Core i5-13600K), it’s 5300 MHz (Core i5-14600K), while still supporting “only” Turbo Boost 2.0 (TB 3.0 again only applies to Core i7 and Core i9). The clock speed of the E cores already reaches 4 GHz (instead of 3.9 GHz of the Core i5-13600K) and the iGPU (Intel UHD 770) has +50 MHz.

The PL2 value does not change for the Core i5-14600K (and remains at 181 W) although it is natural that the power draw wihtout limits will be higher than the Core i5-13600K when maintaining the same manufacturing node (Intel 7 Ultra) and architecture (Raptor/Golden Cove and Gracemont), as the newer processor is supposed to be faster due to higher clock speeds. The composition of the P and E cores has not changed, so it is a 14-core (6P+8E) CPU with 20 threads. The suggested price of 319 USD has also remained the same, which is between the Ryzen 5 7600X and the Ryzen 7700X. The latter should be a bit above the Ryzen 5 7600X, but the situation in stores is that the Ryzen 7 7700X sells for similar money (as the Core i5-14600K). Naturally, this is also due to the fact that the Ci5-14600K’s raw multi-threaded performance exceeds even the R7 Raphael quite significantly, as Raptor Lake Refresh has the advantage of more cores, even if most of them are slower than the Zen 4 cores in the Ryzen 7000 processors.

In the context of Raptor Lake Refresh, Intel Application Optimization is also worth mentioning. This is an option to increase performance in some games. It is also a feature exclusive to the Core 14th generation processors, which is unsupported on its predecessors (Raptor Lake and Alder Lake). This is not a hardware novelty, but rather a software optimization to improve the responsiveness of programs, which is based on the Windows (task) scheduler and perhaps a more appropriate clock management. However, it is not meant to be an overclock or something that can be automatically counted on. To apply the technology, the program must be on the list of pre-supported applications. You can download the app from the Microsoft Store, where you can then activate these programs and APO (Application Optimization) either individually or in bulk for all supported titles on your computer.

Apart from the fact that APO cannot be used in all games and programs (there are other limitations), you need a sufficiently up-to-date version of the Windows operating system and motherboard support is also essential. APO is an extension of Intel’s older Dynamic Tuning Technology (DTT), which is mainly designed for laptops and is also meant to optimize performance.

However, enabling DTT requires a special driver from the computer manufacturer, in this case the motherboard manufacturer. They must provide a driver separately for each of their motherboards. Our test platform does not currently support APO. Nevertheless, we would not reach for this technology in standard tests because of the “hardware” (i.e. without such software assistance) comparison with previous generations. Anyway, if you are going to judge processors against the previous generation, keep in mind that the potential use of APO is something that can be taken into account.




  •  
  •  
  •  
Continue:
Flattr this!

Related articles

Comments (4) Add comment

  1. What’s up with the power draw curves (page 35)? 14600k is nowhere to be seen there… But it is interesting that both i5-x400 draw pretty much exactly the same power, despite 13600 having 4 e-cores.

    Reply

    1. The line graphs in chapter 35 are correct for the Core i5-14600K. Thanks for the heads up! Originally we forgot to rewrite the path, but they are always there in the editorial system. They can be found at processor-name-g342 to g346. The whole link looks like this: https://www.hwcooling.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/intel-core-i5-14600k-g342.png Of course we will try to get the charts to display correctly in the article, but if you see different ones there, you know about this system. 🙂

      Reply

  2. When testing the modern powerful CPUs, we run into the problem that it basically pulls all the power it can. So testing is also quite a bit about how much power are we willing to deliver, and how much heat are we able to remove.

    Looking at the Cinebench 23MT figure: 14600k lags r7900x by ~10% there. Hence its performance is comparable to 7900 (non-x), or equivalently, 7900x capped at 90W. You do not show 7900 on this graph, but there are other test sites that report its performance being 5-10% below that of the 7900x. But importantly, Ryzen 7900 only pulls half of the power of 14600k.

    I would like to understand if intel is actually less power efficient than ryzen. Would it be possible to test 14600k capped to 90W as well? I’d guess it is actually rather similar to ryzen in such a setup, with multi-threaded performance falling somewhere between 7700 and 7900, but I have never seen a test.

    Reply

    1. The efficiency of equivalent processors when tuned for comparable power draw is very similar. Note in our motherboard tests the comparison of the Core i9-13900K with the R9 7950X with power limits (with Intel’s PL2 at 125 W/”IPL” and AMD’s TDP at 105 W/”AMD Eco”) in a 10-minute pass of Cinebench R23. Sure, it’s not a completely equivalent situation if only because of the short Tau time interval used for Intel from the start with PL2 at 253 W and AMD’s 105-watt TPD means a PPT constant of 142 W, but in the end, the calculated performance per watt is very similar when you divide the CB R23 score by the average power draw of the entire test. Naturally, depending on the board (and its aggressiveness of power supply) it can always be a bit different and the results will also differ depending on the processor used, but after manual tuning all current AMD and Intel processors have the potential to achieve comparable efficiency. Of course, if we take into account the default settings, Intel achieves significantly lower efficiency than competitive AMD processors, but those do it with higher power draw, which isn’t emphasized that much with Ryzens. During gaming load, where all processors have marginal power draw (compared to the power draw at maximum performance), the efficiency across equivalent processors is also fairly even.

      And the answer to the question if it would be possible to test the Ci5-14600K at 90 W. Some more extensive tests are certainly beyond our current time possibilities, but if only the result of one or two selected tests would be useful for you, then of course I can measure it. So if you let me know what would be of interest, by Wednesday of next week the latest. Then I will have to test Raptor Lake Refresh and switch to other topics again.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *